Wednesday, August 8, 2012

On this blog today I found an excellent article which exemplifies for me the "Wake Up Call" that seems to be rapidly spreading through Catholic circles concerning the fascist nature and tactics of the same sex pseudo-marriage movement, in the wake of L'Affair Chik-Fil-A.

UPDATE 8.16.12: The terrorist attack on Family Research Center yesterday serves to make the above point in an entirely new and chilling way.Wake up, Catholics.Wake up, people of good faith.This is a terrorist movement we are dealing with.

We are waking up.

My prayer is that we are not waking up too late.

I reproduce my response below, from the comments section, to a decent, compassionate, Christian commentator "Anonymous", whose comments provide an insight into why it is that we now stand on the very knife's edge of surrendering the power to rewrite the marriage laws into the hands of a very dark, very violent, very fascist movement determined to use those laws to indoctrinate children into homosexualist anti-values in public schools, without the slightest ability on the part of the children or the parents to do a single thing about it.
The tactic is an old one.

Ask the Trojans.

About the Horse.

****************************************

"I think much of the support for redefining marriage comes from a sense of compassion for the rights of others."

>> Exactly. It was framed as a civil rights issue from the beginning, by very smart and committed people who understand how to push the right buttons in an electorate (as well as a Catholic Church) which has a long and proud history of responding to civil rights issues.

Of course, it never was a civil rights issue at all. I will prove it in a moment.

A: "However, truth matters as well,"

>> Truth can never be opposed to truth. If it were ever the case that a civil right was being denied SSA individuals, then truth would be on the side of the same sex marriage movement.

Truth has never been on the side of the SSM movement, because there was never a civil rights issue involved in the first place.

I will prove it in a moment.

A: "and the truth is that the sexual union of a man and a woman potentially can produce a child. There is a level of responsibility that exists in this particular type of relationship that is unique because of that. The commitment made by a man and a woman in marriage provides the best situation for raising the children produced by their sexual union in a stable and loving relationship."

>> Now *that* is the truth. Every syllable.

A: "On the other hand, there are rights that should be available to those in loving and committed relationships, but I would like to suggest that these relationships extend to a broader group than those in sexually active relationships. There are widows who live together after the deaths of their husbands, adult siblings who form a household, divorced mothers who support each other in raising their children together who just as much as same sex couple would benefit from many of the rights given to married couples."

>> Sigh.

There it is.

This is why we now stand at the very precipice of handing the power to rewrite the marriage laws to a movement that is implacably determined to employ those laws as the basis for sophisticated indoctrination of every public school pupil in America in homosexualist anti-values, *values which are profoundly in opposition to both Faith, and reason.*

The SSM movement insists that, somehow, the rights society has always extended to married couples,, *ought to be extended to ____________ (fill in whatever category you are sympathetic to, it doesn't matter which)........once the idea that marriage *rights* ought to be given to *non-married* people, the list will have no end. It cannot possibly have an end, because the foundational assumption of SSM has been implicitly granted, and that point is this:

There is no such thing as marriage!

Marriage is simply another word for Federal Friendship Benefits. Or widow benefits. Or couples benefits. Or any other kind of Federal benefits.

Marriage is simply a word that refers to (for now) two *people* who want to *commit* to each other (until they don't).

*Having bought into this, defeat is utterly certain*.

The SSM movement *always knew it, it was their strategy from the beginning to manipulate the compassion of people of Faith so they would surrender their religious liberty, and their children as well, before finally waking up to the scam- too late.

Here we get to the point where I can demonstrate the proof I promised earlier, that SSM was *never in any way about civil rights*.

A: "That does not mean we should redefine marriage to include all these loving and committed relationships, but perhaps we do need to find a way to extend rights without diminishing the importance of marriage for the stability and future of our children and our society."

>> God bless you and your Christian heart, Anonymous. You have been duped, effortlessly.

*All of those rights were specifically granted, in the form of civil unions, and the very next morning the lawsuit challenging marriage on 14th Amendment grounds was filed*.

*It was always planned that way*.

Because, you see, if the law limits marriage to gender-complementary couples *for good reason*- the very reasons you outline above!- then there *is no civil rights question involved for same sex couples concerning marriage!

*But*- and please admire the true sophistication and ferocious intelligence behind this ploy- *but* as soon as the principle has been established, in law, of the entitlement of same sex couples to the *rights and privileges previously extended by society only to married couples*.........

Now there *IS* a civil rights issue!

If they are entitled to the same rights and privileges, *there can be no basis at law to deny them the title MARRAIGE, since marriage has been defined out of existence in the very act of extending its benefits to non-married couples!

Of course these lawsuits succeeded.

It was always intended to dupe softhearted and compassionate and decent Catholics (and others) like you, Anonymous- into proposing the very solution which would doom marriage altogether.

It is my sad duty to have to tell you this.

It is my even sadder duty to tell you that in a better age, Catholic Bishops- REAL CATHOLIC BISHOPS- would have seen this coming ten miles off (that is what a Shepherd does- he sees the wolf before the flock does).......

Instead our bishops were completely blind.

As blind as you.

But it is not your fault.

It is, however, their fault.

May God, through the merciful intercession of His angels and saints, sealed with the irresistible plea of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, protect us now.

Let us imagine a man, perhaps a man on a deserted island, brought there by parents after shipwreck while still a baby, raised until ago eight or so, and then orphaned.Never heard the gospel.Never got baptized.Let us imagine the man grows up as a good man, following his own lights as best he can, convinced as he looks up at the sky at night that Someone must have been responsible for the order and beauty he perceives in creation.Here is my question:Given exactly the information we have above, and no more, and given exactly the testimony of Scripture, Tradition, and the *defined dogmas* of the Catholic Church concerning salvation (and no more).........Is this man saved?I propose an answer below, and sincerely encourage contrary proposals.My answer is that this man is not saved, absent some supernatural intervention by God, concerning which we could never have any evidence at all, ever, this side of eternity.I support this conclusion by reference to Scripture, Tradition, and dogmatic definition.First, Scripture: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Jn 3:5Second, Tradition:

"I have heard, sir," said I, "from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is. They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive."------The Shepherd of Hermas, c. 140 AD 4:3:1-2Third, dogmatic definition:"......the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."-- Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter IVIt has been objected that new teaching in the Catechism, based on the Council, provides exceptions to this.I answer this cannot possibly be true, since the Church is protected by heaven itself against contradicting any defined dogma of the Faith in Her teaching.It has been objected that the man on the island would be saved in ways unknown to us, by God.I answer that it is legitimate to hope for this, since God is certainly capable of acting in some way, unknown to us, to save such and so a person under such and so circumstance.But since such a thing can never be known to us, it necessarily follows that we will never have knowledge of any such case actually occurring, and hence we will have no knowledge of any specific person saved in such a way.Since we will never have any such knowledge, it follows that the certain, infallible, Scriptural and Apostolic teaching of the Church concerning the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation has been drastically undermined by means of substituting a permitted theological speculation- that God might save in ways unknown to us- for a thrice-defined dogma of the Faith:1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)3. “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)I suggest further that the collapse in the post-conciliar missionary outreach of the Church is related in an important way to this practical substitution of speculation for dogma.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Yesterday America demonstrated in a ridiculously unpredictable (and hence very reliable) way, that all of the PR assaults, all of the politically correct bomfoggery, all of the shouts of "bigot" and "intolerant" of the marriage corruption movement, have been for nought.